Page:History of the Radical Party in Parliament.djvu/350

 336 History of the Radical Party in Parliament. [1841- of June the subject was opened by Buncombe, who presented a petition from Serafino Calderara, Joseph Mazzini, W. J. Linton, and William Lovett, complaining that their letters had been opened in the post-office. Graham acknowledged that in the case of one of the petitioners the allegation was true, and that in opening the letters he had exercised a right which the law undoubtedly gave to the officers of the Crown. There was a loud and general cry of indignation throughout the country, especially as it was thought that the inspection had taken place at the instance of a foreign government, and had endangered the lives of some of their subjects. This statement was denied, but Buncombe and his Radical friends obtained a special committee of inquiry, and a like committee was appointed by the Peers, at the instance of the Earl of Radnor. The inquiry resulted in the issue of reports which supported the statement that the examination of letters was legal ; that it was specifically provided for on the foundation of the post-office ; and that it had been used, although very rarely, by succeeding Ministries. There was no alteration of the law, but the vehement expression of public opinion has been of service to the cause which Buncombe espoused with such vigour and ability. The cause of religious liberty did not want occasion for vindication by the Radical members during the year. On the 3 ist of May, when there was before the House of Commons a proposal for altering and amending the eccle- siastical courts, Buncombe moved to abolish them alto- gether, and to transfer their jurisdiction to civil courts. This was a proposal which, if adopted, would have struck at the foundation of a good deal of the difficulty which has arisen from the fact that ecclesiastical officers of the State have supposed that, because they have access to special courts, they ought not to be subject to laws passed by Parliament in the ordinary manner. Buncombe obtained seventy votes for his proposal, which was lost by a majority of forty-five. On the nth of June Ward submitted his annual motion for a committee of the whole House upon